User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 177

  1. #91
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Because retarded people will be able to function soundly enough to make decisions in our society. They will simply take longer. Even if that was not the case, your point is not relevant to the thread.
    Why is not relevant?

    If person has some stronger mental problems it will never be fully functional. Since you are taking about killing babies because they can be propety for first few years of life.
    Why not expand entire thing to highly retarded people, they are children for life.
    I don't see your logic.

  2. #92
    almost half a doctor phoenix13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Because retarded people will be able to function soundly enough to make decisions in our society.
    Ahhh, that is comforting. You were sounding elitist for a while there...

  3. #93
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    You have no right to damage my child just like you have no right to damage my automobile.
    If I 'damaged' your child, would that be considered murder, assuming that we've already established that your child is one of your sub-humans? Or could I get off with paying a fine? Could I get sub-human damage insurance, to cover the costs of the sub-humans I plan on damaging in your fantasy world?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #94
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It isnt a matter of Feel!!
    Stop throwing a tantrum.

  5. #95
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Why is not relevant?

    If person has some stronger mental problems it will never be fully functional. Since you are taking about killing babies because they can be propety for first few years of life.
    Why not expand entire thing to highly retarded people, they are children for life.
    I don't see your logic.

    Your point was not relevant because it did not directly address the issues raised in the OP. Namely, under what other circumstances besides the ones previously described could people be killed.

    Yes, if the degree of retardation is severe to the point where one will not be fully functional, such a person will forever remain the property of the parent. There it is up to them to kill the person or not to kill.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #96
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If I 'damaged' your child, would that be considered murder, assuming that we've already established that your child is one of your sub-humans? Or could I get off with paying a fine? Could I get sub-human damage insurance, to cover the costs of the sub-humans I plan on damaging in your fantasy world?

    Most likely some jail time. Its highly valued property, much like a house, or a business. Much akin to the penalty you'd incur for the crime of arson.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Most likely some jail time. Its highly valued property, much like a house, or a business. Much akin to the penalty you'd incur for the crime of arson.
    You've just argued yourself into a circle, because the penalties for arson in the USA are usually similar to those for say, second degree murder.

  8. #98
    Member Ferrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    69

    Default

    'One may speculate that the universal maxim espoused by the species Cricetus cricetus affirms that infanticide is a categorical imperative of the necessitous familial unit.' - I. Kant

  9. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    The parents are already given ample time to make that decision through abortion. It's apparent that you aren't going to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to put it down afterwards. That would be silly.
    The problem is that if there is a change in economic stability, or the father leaves the mother to care for the baby on her own, there should still be the option available, and understand that most people would probably keep the baby.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    My argument was that one should receive human rights when one acquires the high enough level of cognitive functioning. A retarded baby takes longer to achieve this for this reason, it could be killed at an older age than a normal baby.
    Yes but there is variation on types or retardation correct? Are we going to have to make different ages for each case of retardation? Depending on the severity of the retardation which may not even be discernable at the time?

    My problem here is why wait so long to kill it? I mean during the span of 5 years, the parents could have given the idea some thought. I'll bargain the age of 3 for you given that they do take longer to develop but 5 seems overboard.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Is your premise with regard to demarcation between human agents and non-human agents different from mine? If so, what is it?
    My lines of demarcation are similar but take the same side of you by slightly different reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I do not get why the humane-ness factor should be considered with regard to non-human children? Namely why the parent should be obligated to give them up for adoption rather than kill them if he so wills?
    No I think that they should have both options up to a certain age, but if the child gets beyond said age without the parents making a decision than that is the fault of the parents, they had plenty of time to contemplate the fate of the child. Plus, if the child gets beyond said age without a decision being made, it shows the incompetance of the parents, so adoption makes sense, gets the child away from the parents (they don't deserve to make the choice of killing it).

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    The humane-ness factor applies only to those who are intellectually fit enough to claim human rights. To change this, you ought to challenge my initial premise, with respect to which I have asked you a question.
    I'm not challenging it. I think that killing the baby should be an option up to a certain point as well, its that most people will not take that option over adoption, however it should be a choice. I am Pro-Choice

  10. #100
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Your point was not relevant because it did not directly address the issues raised in the OP. Namely, under what other circumstances besides the ones previously described could people be killed.

    Yes, if the degree of retardation is severe to the point where one will not be fully functional, such a person will forever remain the property of the parent. There it is up to them to kill the person or not to kill.
    Sorry I did not know the rules.

Similar Threads

  1. Legality of Infanticide
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-19-2015, 02:00 PM
  2. Type based on choice of historical quotes.
    By Jack Flak in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 08:41 PM
  3. on Philosophy of Education
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 06:12 PM
  4. [ENTP] On: Overassessment of entp savvy
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO